Persons with Disabilities – Promotion and Reservation – Respondent sought promotion under the physically handicapped quota – BSNL rejected as no relaxation/reservation for physically handicapped persons in promotion as in SC/ST – Chief Commissioner ordered inclusion of TOA cadre in identified posts and consideration for promotion – Supreme Court held the Chief Commissioner exceeded powers under Section 59 of Disabilities Act – Promotion in physically handicapped quota limited to identified posts only [Paras 2-11].

Identification of Posts – Government Policy – High Power Committee identified specific posts for promotion under physically handicapped quota – TOA cadre not included – Supreme Court emphasized the government’s policy decision to limit identified posts – Chief Commissioner cannot extend policy beyond identified posts [Paras 9-11].

Scope of Chief Commissioner’s Powers – Examination of Rights – Section 59 of the Disabilities Act allows Chief Commissioner to examine deprivation of rights under existing laws – Chief Commissioner cannot create or confer new rights – Supreme Court clarified powers limited to ensuring implementation of existing laws and regulations [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Chief Commissioner’s order and High Court’s affirmation set aside – No powers to direct inclusion of TOA cadre in identified categories or grant promotion under reserved vacancies [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Proportionality of Punishment – Respondent removed from service for entering Principal’s office in a drunken state during working hours – Supreme Court held that penalty of removal was not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct – High Court’s reduction of penalty set aside as it misapplied the principle of proportionality [Paras 3-11].

Misconduct and Discipline – Drunken Behavior – Respondent admitted to entering Principal’s office under the influence of alcohol – Supreme Court emphasized seriousness of misconduct especially in educational institution – Held penalty of removal justified given the gravity of misconduct [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Interference – Limited Scope – Emphasized limited role of courts in interfering with departmental penalties – Courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of disciplinary authorities unless penalty is shockingly disproportionate – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by prescribing specific penalty [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Tribunal’s decision upholding removal from service restored – No costs [Paras 12-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Jurisdiction of Authorities – Respondent penalized by UPSEB for misconduct committed while in service – Supreme Court held that as per Regulation 6(4), the Chairman was the competent authority to impose punishment, not the Board – Punishment order set aside as it deprived respondent of right to appeal to the Board, violating principles of natural justice [Paras 9-11, 21].

Right of Appeal – Deprivation and Illegality – UPSEB’s order of punishment by Board deprived respondent of statutory right of appeal to the Board – Supreme Court emphasized that an employee's right to appeal must not be usurped by a higher authority improperly assuming disciplinary jurisdiction [Paras 12-19].

Continuance of Proceedings Post-Retirement – Permissibility – Disciplinary proceedings initiated during service can continue post-retirement to determine pension reduction – Supreme Court affirmed principles allowing such proceedings provided they adhere to statutory rules and ensure fair process [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Order of punishment by UPSEB annulled due to violation of procedural fairness and right to appeal [Paras 22].

Electricity Regulatory Commission – Jurisdiction – HPERC issued directions and imposed penalties on HPSEB for non-compliance with tariff order directions – HPSEB contested jurisdiction of HPERC – High Court ruled in favor of HPSEB, holding that HPERC became functus officio after fixing tariff – Supreme Court analyzed scope of Section 22(1)(d) of the 1998 Act, concluding that HPERC had authority to issue directions to promote efficiency and economy in electricity industry [Paras 1-34].

Repeal and Saving Provisions – Vested Rights – Appeals were pending before High Court when 2003 Act came into force – Supreme Court held that right to appeal to High Court was a vested right preserved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and not affected by the 2003 Act – High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeals [Paras 12-31].

Penalty and Compliance – HPERC imposed Rs. 5000 penalty on HPSEB for non-compliance – Supreme Court found substantial compliance by HPSEB – Penalty deemed unwarranted given factual compliance – HPERC directed to proceed under 2003 Act if further action required, without relying on earlier orders [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Appeals disposed of – High Court’s jurisdiction affirmed – HPERC’s authority to issue directions upheld – Penalty imposed on HPSEB set aside – Directions for future compliance under 2003 Act provided [Paras 35].

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Appellants filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC against the respondent, a public servant, alleging various offences – Special Judge referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC without sanction order – High Court quashed the order, holding that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary even at pre-cognizance stage – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, emphasizing necessity of sanction before referring for investigation under Section 156(3) [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Procedure – Application of Mind – Magistrate’s discretion under Section 156(3) CrPC requires application of mind – Mere mechanical referral for investigation not permissible – Supreme Court observed that the order must reflect reasons for ordering investigation [Para 8].

Cognizance and Sanction – Definition and Stages – Examined whether referring a complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC constitutes taking cognizance – Held that such referral is at pre-cognizance stage – Sanction is required before taking cognizance, and thus necessary even for pre-cognizance investigation of a public servant [Paras 9-10].

Mandatory Sanction – Procedural vs. Substantive Requirement – Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates prior sanction for prosecuting public servants – Supreme Court affirmed that sanction is not merely procedural but a substantive requirement to protect public servants from vexatious litigation [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s quashing of investigation referral upheld – Requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants reaffirmed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Respondent accused of obtaining loans on forged documents in conspiracy with bank officials – High Court quashed proceedings under Section 482 CrPC citing settlement with bank – Supreme Court held that compromise between offender and victim not applicable for non-compoundable offences involving moral turpitude – Offences under Sections 420, 471 IPC impact public and societal interests, beyond private disputes [Paras 1-16].

Inherent Power of High Court – Distinction from Compounding – Supreme Court reiterated that High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC is distinct from compounding under Section 320 CrPC – High Court must consider nature and gravity of offence, impact on society, and not quash proceedings for serious offences merely on settlement between parties [Para 13].

Public Interest – Banking Fraud – Offences involving banking fraud and forgery affect public trust and financial stability – Such offences fall under category involving moral turpitude, not subject to quashing on settlement – Emphasized importance of proceeding with trial to maintain public confidence in justice system [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashing proceedings set aside – Trial court directed to proceed with trial expeditiously in accordance with law [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Identification of Assailants – PW-1, the informant, witnessed the assault on the deceased by the accused persons – Corroborated by PW-2 and PW-6 – Appellants contested identification by PW-1, citing her reliance on others for names – Supreme Court found evidence of PW-1, supported by PW-2 and PW-6, credible despite minor inconsistencies [Paras 4-12].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Justification – Incident occurred at 7:30 PM, FIR lodged at 11:50 PM – Appellants argued delay undermines prosecution case – Supreme Court accepted explanation of PW-1 and PW-6, detailing efforts to locate police and lodge FIR, thus delay justified and does not affect prosecution's credibility [Paras 13].

Common Object – Nature and Extent – Autopsy revealed 27 injuries inflicted on deceased – Appellants argued absence of common object to murder – Supreme Court held extensive injuries and manner of assault indicated common object of murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC – Conviction upheld [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC upheld [Para 20].

Unification of Religious Trusts – Validity of Change Reports – Compliance with Statutory Provisions: The unification of six churches, including the First District Church of the Brethren (FDCB), into the Church of North India (CNI) was purportedly based on internal resolutions. However, the statutory requirements under the Societies Registration Act (SR Act) and Bombay Public Trusts Act (BPTA) for the dissolution and merger of trusts were not adhered to. Consequently, the unification had no legal foundation as the FDCB trust never stood dissolved, and its properties could not automatically vest in CNI. The procedure under Section 50A of the BPTA was disregarded [Paras 3.1-14, 17, 19-20]​​.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Bar under Section 80 of BPTA – Scope of Inquiry under Section 22: The civil court's jurisdiction is barred concerning matters where the Charity Commissioner has requisite authority under the BPTA. However, if the trust property or trust itself is not valid in law, civil courts may have jurisdiction. The scope of inquiry by the Charity Commissioner under Section 22 includes verifying changes in the trust entries and ensuring compliance with statutory requirements [Paras 22, 24]​​.

Estoppel – Freedom of Faith and Religion: The court dismissed the argument that the respondents were estopped from objecting to the unification after initially participating in the merger discussions. It upheld the right of individuals to change their views on religious matters and emphasized that the principles of estoppel do not apply to matters of faith and religion [Paras 21]​​.

Admissibility of Evidence – Procedure Before Charity Commissioner: The procedure before the Charity Commissioner must ensure fair opportunity to contest issues, and the evidence submitted must adhere to the basic principles of evidence law, even though strict rules of the Code of Civil Procedure may not apply [Paras 23]​​.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the High Court and City Civil Court, which had set aside the Charity Commissioner's order allowing the change reports. The FDCB trust continues to exist, and its properties do not vest in CNI [Paras 26-28]​​.

Criminal Law – Trial Procedure – Conviction on Guilty Plea – Lack of Notice to Complainant: The trial court convicted the respondents under Sections 323 and 343 IPC based on their guilty plea, without notifying the appellant or considering his statement under Section 164 CrPC. The proceedings were conducted hastily, violating the appellant’s rights and due process [Paras 2-14]​​.

Jurisdiction – Authority of Trial Court – Order Impact on Service: The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by making observations that the conviction would not adversely affect the respondents' government service. Such observations have civil consequences and are beyond the scope of the trial court's authority [Paras 6-11]​​.

Probation of Offenders Act – Scope and Application: The benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which prevents disqualification upon conviction, was misapplied. The trial court’s order improperly shielded the respondents from service-related consequences of their conviction [Paras 10-12]​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, remanding the matter for a fresh trial in accordance with law, emphasizing the necessity of notifying the appellant and properly considering the charges and evidence [Paras 13-14]​​.